or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple officially appeals e-books antitrust ruling, asks for dismissal or retrial
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple officially appeals e-books antitrust ruling, asks for dismissal or retrial - Page 2

post #41 of 99

FWIW, I have boycotted AMAZON and not missing anything ....

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply
post #42 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post


Adding to your list...
3) Not allowing a competitor witness to sit on the witness stand for the prosecution to state his company lawyers wrote the response for him then using the response as credible evidence.
4) Reading multiple emails containing a man's working thought processes concerning possible paths to take then choosing to condemn him for having the thoughts even he chose not to take those paths.

 

Why should either of these happen? Emails that were written are evidence. Witnesses are allowed to take legal advice too you know.

 

It was an unsent draft. The version he ended up sending was lawful. There is an enormous difference. 

post #43 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveinpublic View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell View Post

"The brief clarified that the district court's decision "did not find that 'Apple itself desired higher e-book prices than those offered at Amazon." (emphasis in original) Instead, the court found the iPad to have "encouraged innovation and competition."

Oh really? Trying to rewrite history are we?


"...records of Apple saying it "cannot tolerate a market where the product is sold significantly more cheaply elsewhere." And some of the most damning statements, Cote said, came all the way from the top of Apple.

"Compelling evidence of Apple's participation in the conspiracy came from the words uttered by Steve Jobs, Apple's founder, CEO, and visionary. Apple has struggled mightily to reinterpret Jobs's statements in a way that will eliminate their bite. Its efforts have proven fruitless." In one statement, Jobs told James Murdoch that Amazon's $9.99 sales were "eroding the value perception" of its products, and that Apple would be trying higher price points. This was confirmed at launch. "Jobs's purchase of an e-book for $14.99 at the Launch, and his explanation to a reporter that day that Amazon's $9.99 price for the same book would be irrelevant because soon all prices will "be the same" is further evidence that Apple understood and intended that Amazon's ability to set retail prices would soon be eliminated."

Jobs' statements, Cote said, "remain powerful evidence of conspiratorial knowledge and intent."

http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/10/4510338/apple-found-guilty-of-ebook-price-fixing

I love Steve Jobs but I don't have to be thrilled that he told content holders to use an agency model, which means don't sell your stuff for less anywhere. I remember searching online, why are ebook prices so high, and seeing many other people asked the same thing in forums and question answer sites. Unfortunately, this probably has a lot to do with it.

 

The publishers set the price. You can blame Steve for not wanting to compete on price, but you need to blame the publishers for the actual price. ;)

post #44 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post
 

The bottom line on this case is this:

 

For the first time ever in this nation's history, the United States Department of Justice sued to restore a monopoly position that was torn down by a new entrant.  This is a dangerous precedent which I lay squarely on the feet of Eric Holder who seemed to be too stupid to realize that he was turning the DoJ into the private law firm of a predatory monopolist.  A more enlightened DoJ would have used prosecutorial discretion and looked beyond the narrow view of prices, focusing more on long term competition in the eBooks industry.

Well stated, also they took action prior to any proof that the activities was actually anti-competitive, they took a preemptive position, verse coming in after there was evidence that this activities drove up pricing.

 

If they is their view then why not sure the US patent system since it assures they the owner of IP could charge the highest price and keep competitors out. Just look at the Drug Manufactures have been doing for the last 30 yrs.

post #45 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disturbia View Post

FWIW, I have boycotted AMAZON and not missing anything ....

Because of the eBooks issue?

I think Apple was wronged here, mostly by the kangaroo* court system, but I still love the convenience of Amazon.



* Is this an offensive term to Australians?

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #46 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I think Apple was wronged here, mostly by the kangaroo* court system, but I still love the convenience of Amazon.



* Is this an offensive term to Australians?

Why should it be offensive to Australians?

Kangaroos, on the other hand....

PS: I don't do Amazon either, and have never missed it (my wife is an avid Amazon purchaser, so I know about the convenience factor).
post #47 of 99
Good, they should continue pursuing all of the paths available to them to attempt to change this ruling. I think they should fight regardless of the truth, it's never good to regret not trying everything you can with something.
My blender/recipe blog: http://blenderinsider.com
Reply
My blender/recipe blog: http://blenderinsider.com
Reply
post #48 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


Regulations and narrowly applied laws are what create monopolies, not a free market.

 

Wrong.  Wrong, wrong, wrong.  If you have a totally free market, as in no regulation at all, you will end up with one big monopoly because all the companies know that if they merge to form one big monopoly then total industry profits will be higher.

post #49 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Because of the eBooks issue?

I think Apple was wronged here, mostly by the kangaroo* court system, but I still love the convenience of Amazon.



* Is this an offensive term to Australians?

 

LOL.  Only when you asked because by asking, you seemed to equate Australians with kangaroos.

post #50 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

Oh. My god. Enough. You lost. Get over it. You can't control everything, Tim.

Note to usher in the gallery: Give this kid an extra bag of peanuts.
post #51 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

LOL.  Only when you asked because by asking, you seemed to equate Australians with kangaroos.

I'm pretty sure kangaroos are their main form of transportation. Too many cartoons as a child.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

Note to usher in the gallery: Give this kid an extra bag of peanuts.

I think he has enough nuts already.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #52 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy View Post

It was an unsent draft. The version he ended up sending was lawful. There is an enormous difference. 
Further, since Jobs is gone he can't be brought in to clarify anything he said or wrote. This is why I was surprised his e-mails would even be allowed since nobody knows for sure EXACTLY what his thought process was or what he meant. To take this even further, there's nothing illegal about discussing ALL possible scenarios in order to come up with a final agreement that's legal (even though some ideas discussed might not have been).
post #53 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by SudoNym View Post
 

 ...... And pricing levels have no direct bearing on decisions.  It is assumed that in a competative  market, market prices will prevail.  

It's called 'Predatory Pricing' and it is illegal under anti-trust laws, as it makes markets more vulnerable to a monopoly. One cannot "assume," with any degree of accuracy, anything in most marketplaces. Thus the irrationality of the stock market.

Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
post #54 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

 

1. The pre-trial opinion was solicited, not spontaneous. If a Judge is not allowed to have an opinion before a case then you will find no judge suitable.

Don't you get tired of pre-chewed baloney?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post
 

For the first time ever in this nation's history, the United States Department of Justice sued to restore a monopoly position that was torn down by a new entrant.  This is a dangerous precedent which I lay squarely on the feet of Eric Holder who seemed to be too stupid to realize that he was turning the DoJ into the private law firm of a predatory monopolist.  A more enlightened DoJ would have used prosecutorial discretion and looked beyond the narrow view of prices, focusing more on long term competition in the eBooks industry.

There is a bigger battle going on and this case is just the latest expression of it. The conflict is between two opposing theories of economics and antitrust regulation, and partly explains why the DoJ chose perversely to go after Apple rather than Amazon. There is the old school represented by Cote and the DoJ, the States' AGs, and the academics and traditionalists on their side who are staunchly against MFNs and minimum resale price agreements. These are the theoretical formalists, they shape reality to their theory that minimum resale price agreements are always evil simply because there have been cases in the past where such agreements were evil, and after all, until 2009, they always _were_ illegal. Then there is the new school, best represented by businesses and academics who have long contended that certain kinds of price-fixing can actually be good for an efficient market. Their arguments finally persuaded the Supreme Court in Leegin v PSKS to overturn a 100 year old precedent, and demand that all cases involving vertical agreements, a rigorous analysis of the whole market both before and after any price-fixing, has to be done to measure both harms and benefits _before_ determining whether anything illegal took place. US antitrust law is much better for it saying you can't just _assume_ that price-fixing is always bad. Even though Leegin was a close 5-4 decision, ultimately its underlying principles will prevail, even if the judges on the 2nd Circuit hearing this appeal are of Judge Cote and the DoJ's more formalistic persuasion. 
post #55 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post
 

The bottom line on this case is this:

 

For the first time ever in this nation's history, the United States Department of Justice sued to restore a monopoly position that was torn down by a new entrant.  This is a dangerous precedent which I lay squarely on the feet of Eric Holder who seemed to be too stupid to realize that he was turning the DoJ into the private law firm of a predatory monopolist.  A more enlightened DoJ would have used prosecutorial discretion and looked beyond the narrow view of prices, focusing more on long term competition in the eBooks industry.

Finally! A shining beacon of understanding amongst the masses of dark misunderstanding.  

Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
post #56 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post
 

 

Wrong.  Wrong, wrong, wrong.  If you have a totally free market, as in no regulation at all, you will end up with one big monopoly because all the companies know that if they merge to form one big monopoly then total industry profits will be higher.

 

I'm not wrong. Look into all of history's biggest monopolies. They enjoyed legal and/or military protections which enabled them to squash competition.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #57 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
 

 

I'm not wrong. Look into all of history's biggest monopolies. They enjoyed legal and/or military protections which enabled them to squash competition.

Yes, you still are wrong.  There would be even bigger monopolies if there were no regulation at all.  Take a course or two in economics first before you start expounding on monopoly, will ya?

post #58 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post
 

Yes, you still are wrong.  There would be even bigger monopolies if there were no regulation at all.  Take a course or two in economics first before you start expounding on monopoly, will ya?

 

That's rich...LOL! I recommend you read this.

 

"The Misplaced Fear of Monopoly"


Edited by SpamSandwich - 2/26/14 at 12:26pm

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #59 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I'm pretty sure kangaroos are their main form of transportation.
I was thinking they would be the Aussies version of self-storage. Those marsupial pockets hold a lot of things.
post #60 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post
 

 

 

Hey, here is an idea. Perhaps, Apple, like myself, actually thinks it didn't do anything wrong? Perhaps, it wants to exercise its rights under the Constitution to have an Appeal Court hear its case. 

I think the problem here is that Apple never thinks it has done anything wrong.   Well aside from the map thing.     Apple will deny, deny, deny until they are finally beaten into the ground despite the obvious staring them in the face.  

 

Sometimes, it's good to just give in when you have been caught with your hand in the cookie jar and stop trying to use lawyers to get off on technicalities.   Of course that is not how our society and court systems work so they will continue to waste DOJ time/resources when common sense and the evidence tells you that they are guilty.  No company is perfect and that includes Apple.   The funny part is that in the eyes of the general public, they will always be guilty for what they did, no matter the outcome of this trial. 

post #61 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by zippy2shoes View Post
 

I think the problem here is that Apple never thinks it has done anything wrong.   Well aside from the map thing.     Apple will deny, deny, deny until they are finally beaten into the ground despite the obvious staring them in the face.  

 

Sometimes, it's good to just give in when you have been caught with your hand in the cookie jar and stop trying to use lawyers to get off on technicalities.   Of course that is not how our society and court systems work so they will continue to waste DOJ time/resources when common sense and the evidence tells you that they are guilty.  No company is perfect and that includes Apple.   The funny part is that in the eyes of the general public, they will always be guilty for what they did, no matter the outcome of this trial. 

 

Nonsense... and you are blocked.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #62 of 99

Apple did nothing wrong, they are innocent and will be exonerated once they are away from the biased bitch of a judge and her money grubbing mate.

 

The real conspiracy to fix prices happened at Bezo's boathouse on Jan 24 2010.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #63 of 99
Quote:

Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post
 

 

The district court's ruling that Apple, in the very act of launching the iPad, inventing the iBooks Store, and entering the e-books market, violated the Sherman Act is a radical departure from modern antitrust law and policy....

 

~~...which found the company culpable for colluding with five major book publishers to falsely inflate the cost of e-books sold through the iBookstore...

 

 

The above statements attempt to add some AI pro-Apple spin.

 

The first sentence is just blatantly and flat out wrong.  The court did not rule that launching the iPad, nor iBooks, were in violation of the Sherman anti-trust act.  Stating that is actually quite laughable- even for AI.

 

The second sentence is what they were found guilty of, except the bit about the iBookstore.  Apple did not attempt to raise prices for eBooks on the iBookstore.  If they had, and offered the same books on iBooks for $14.99 as were offered on Amazon for $9.99, the justice department and everyone else would have been just fine with that.

 

Steve was smart enough, as recognized by his emails, to note that he would likely fail if he sold iBooks for $14.99 that were available on Amazon for $9.99.    He set out from the start to put in place a plan so prices would rise *everywhere.*  By collaborating closely and getting the major book publishers on board with his scheme, he succeeded.

post #64 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
 

 

Nonsense... and you are blocked.

Block me all you want, it just shows that you are unwilling to listen to people who have different views than yourself.   Who needs to be exposed to different types of thinking that perhaps could lead you to challenge your own beliefs and perhaps your perspective on something.  Is it really that terrible to hear what others have to say if it does not conform to your own views?  Do you go through your own life with blinders on?  Imagine living in a world where everyone could filter out everything that did not conform to their way of living.  I don't think there would be a whole lot of personal growth going on.  Anyways, my 2 cents on that.

 

While you probably won't read this, others can and for what it's worth, I think Apple has some great products and some not so great products.  While I use some, I don't use others.  Does that make me an Apple hater?  On this site, that kind of thinking appears to get you labelled as such and I find that really odd because most forums I participate in tend to have the kind of setup where people can engage in debate and not put their fingers in their ears and say "lalalalalalalalala - I never want to hear anything from you again" when they read something they don't like.

post #65 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by zippy2shoes View Post

Block me all you want, it just shows that you are unwilling to listen to people who have different views than yourself.

You're correct in that stupid and irrational views are different from his but you're irrationally attributing all differing views as ones he's not willing to entertain. Don't lump yourself in with everyone who has a different view him SpamSandwich. It's insulting to the rest of us.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #66 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by zippy2shoes View Post

I think the problem here is that Apple never thinks it has done anything wrong.   Well aside from the map thing.     Apple will deny, deny, deny until they are finally beaten into the ground despite the obvious staring them in the face.  

Sometimes, it's good to just give in when you have been caught with your hand in the cookie jar and stop trying to use lawyers to get off on technicalities.   Of course that is not how our society and court systems work so they will continue to waste DOJ time/resources when common sense and the evidence tells you that they are guilty.  No company is perfect and that includes Apple.   The funny part is that in the eyes of the general public, they will always be guilty for what they did, no matter the outcome of this trial. 

Apple didn't do anything wrong. The court came to the wrong conclusion. When has the DOJ ever investigated a new market that quickly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

The above statements attempt to add some AI pro-Apple spin.

The first sentence is just blatantly and flat out wrong.  The court did not rule that launching the iPad, nor iBooks, were in violation of the Sherman anti-trust act.  Stating that is actually quite laughable- even for AI.

The second sentence is what they were found guilty of, except the bit about the iBookstore.  Apple did not attempt to raise prices for eBooks on the iBookstore.  If they had, and offered the same books on iBooks for $14.99 as were offered on Amazon for $9.99, the justice department and everyone else would have been just fine with that.

Blah

Um you do realize those statements were from Apple's brief and not AI.
post #67 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


You're correct in that stupid and irrational views are different from his but you're irrationally attributing all differing views as ones he's not willing to entertain. Don't lump yourself in with everyone who has a different view him SpamSandwich. It's insulting to the rest of us.

I have no idea what his threshold is for 'blocking' people but from my personal experience, it is NOT rare to see see people on this site post comments such as "BLOCKED!" when they see something that they do not agree with - particularly if it criticizes Apple in any way, shape or form. 

 

While some of the offending posts are troll bait, I've seen others where the person actually has put some put some thought into their comment.  In SpamSandwich's world, there is no possible way now that I could provide him with any kind of meaningful dialogue or insight about something.   Don't get me wrong, it's no skin off my back but I just find the whole system a bit anti-social (not sure if that is the right word but that's what jumped into my head at the moment).  Was the block system put in place so a ban hammer does not have to be used?

post #68 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
 

 

That's rich...LOL! I recommend you read this.

 

"The Misplaced Fear of Monopoly"

LOL!  Oh jeez, junk social science.   You are using, to back up your argument, the work of intellectual whores that billionaires hire to hang a fig leaf of respectability on their rapacious quest to grab an ever greater slice of the economic pie?  You could have at least alluded to a Chicago economist or something a little more respectable.  Okay, I'm not debating you anymore.  It's pointless.  It's like arguing with climate change deniers and creationists.

post #69 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

LOL!  Oh jeez, junk social science.   You are using, to back up your argument, the work of intellectual whores that billionaires hire to hang a fig leaf of respectability on their rapacious quest to grab an ever greater slice of the economic pie?  You could have at least alluded to a Chicago economist or something a little more respectable.  Okay, I'm not debating you anymore.  It's pointless.  It's like arguing with climate change deniers and creationists.

Keynesianism has never worked. At least avail yourself of the numerous facts cited in the linked article.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #70 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Keynesianism has never worked.
Post-war Western Europe didn't rebuild? News to us.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #71 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by zippy2shoes View Post

I think the problem here is that Apple never thinks it has done anything wrong.   Well aside from the map thing.     Apple will deny, deny, deny until they are finally beaten into the ground despite the obvious staring them in the face.  

Sometimes, it's good to just give in when you have been caught with your hand in the cookie jar and stop trying to use lawyers to get off on technicalities.   Of course that is not how our society and court systems work so they will continue to waste DOJ time/resources when common sense and the evidence tells you that they are guilty.  No company is perfect and that includes Apple.   The funny part is that in the eyes of the general public, they will always be guilty for what they did, no matter the outcome of this trial. 

You are begging the question. An appeal has been filed at this point. I find it disturbing that you wish to characterize Apple's appeal as "wasting DOJ time/resources". Checks and balances and higher courts exist in order to protect the rights of everyone.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #72 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by zippy2shoes View Post
 

I think the problem here is that Apple never thinks it has done anything wrong.   Well aside from the map thing.     Apple will deny, deny, deny until they are finally beaten into the ground despite the obvious staring them in the face.  

 

Sometimes, it's good to just give in when you have been caught with your hand in the cookie jar and stop trying to use lawyers to get off on technicalities.   Of course that is not how our society and court systems work so they will continue to waste DOJ time/resources when common sense and the evidence tells you that they are guilty.  No company is perfect and that includes Apple.   The funny part is that in the eyes of the general public, they will always be guilty for what they did, no matter the outcome of this trial. 

 

First, Apple is an "it", not a "they." It is a singular company. Second, we know the Justice Department is busy saving us from the evil Apple that only increased competition in the eBook market (Amazon's lobbyists can't have that), and across the board brought prices down. Since, the Department of Justice's foolishness, Barnes and Noble's Nook, which was doing well, is now suffering a loss, and the price of eBooks is actually rising on a whole. Third, please enlighten us to situations where Apple should have admitted to wrong doing? I think Apple is a pretty fair company with its customers. Some vocal customers were upset Apple brought a new iPhone out after six months, and lowered the price, something tons of companies do, and Apple certainly was in its rights to do. It responded by giving users a hundred dollar credit. Certain news organizations complained about the antennae design in the iPhone 4, a design shared by lots of phones at the time. Apple responded by giving away free thirty dollar bumpers and offering extended full refunds. I once contacted Steve Jobs about a five year old Mac that had a faulty logic board, Apple paid for shipping and fixed it for free even though it was well out of warranty. 


Edited by TBell - 2/26/14 at 2:17pm
post #73 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


You are begging the question. An appeal has been filed at this point. I find it disturbing that you wish to characterize Apple's appeal as "wasting DOJ time/resources". Checks and balances and higher courts exist in order to protect the rights of everyone.

Why sweat the details?

post #74 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post
 

 

The above statements attempt to add some AI pro-Apple spin.

 

The first sentence is just blatantly and flat out wrong.  The court did not rule that launching the iPad, nor iBooks, were in violation of the Sherman anti-trust act.  Stating that is actually quite laughable- even for AI.

.....

Laughable or not that wasn't a statement from AI, that was a direct quote of the Apple appeal.

 

"A brief introductory statement inserts a few fresh arguments into Apple's case against, while rehashing older claims that the iBookstore and iPad created, not stifled, competition in the e-book space."

 

Look at the original article, that's in a quote box:

http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/02/26/apple-officially-appeals-e-books-antitrust-ruling-asks-for-dismissal-or-retrial

post #75 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Post-war Western Europe didn't rebuild? News to us.

How's it working out now? It has exacerbated and extended this modern depression we have been mired in (yes, depression, not recession) lo, these many years. The bailouts were a massive scam. "Quantitative easing" has only benefitted Wall Street. Central planning DOES NOT WORK. It fosters corruption, political meddling and inefficiencies only a madman could dream up.
Edited by SpamSandwich - 2/26/14 at 4:37pm

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #76 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by zippy2shoes View Post

I think the problem here is that Apple never thinks it has done anything wrong.   Well aside from the map thing.     Apple will deny, deny, deny until they are finally beaten into the ground despite the obvious staring them in the face.  

Sometimes, it's good to just give in when you have been caught with your hand in the cookie jar and stop trying to use lawyers to get off on technicalities.   Of course that is not how our society and court systems work so they will continue to waste DOJ time/resources when common sense and the evidence tells you that they are guilty.  No company is perfect and that includes Apple.   The funny part is that in the eyes of the general public, they will always be guilty for what they did, no matter the outcome of this trial. 

None of us like to admit that we've done wrong so Apple is acting quite normally. I always believed that the publishers were guilty, not Apple, but I was not surprised that Apple lost simply because the government doesn't like to lose, however I am surprised at the punishment that was handed down. In my opinion it is way too severe for what Apple was found guilty of.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #77 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell View Post

"The brief clarified that the district court's decision "did not find that 'Apple itself desired higher e-book prices than those offered at Amazon." (emphasis in original) Instead, the court found the iPad to have "encouraged innovation and competition."

Oh really? Trying to rewrite history are we?


"...records of Apple saying it "cannot tolerate a market where the product is sold significantly more cheaply elsewhere." And some of the most damning statements, Cote said, came all the way from the top of Apple.

"Compelling evidence of Apple's participation in the conspiracy came from the words uttered by Steve Jobs, Apple's founder, CEO, and visionary. Apple has struggled mightily to reinterpret Jobs's statements in a way that will eliminate their bite. Its efforts have proven fruitless." In one statement, Jobs told James Murdoch that Amazon's $9.99 sales were "eroding the value perception" of its products, and that Apple would be trying higher price points. This was confirmed at launch. "Jobs's purchase of an e-book for $14.99 at the Launch, and his explanation to a reporter that day that Amazon's $9.99 price for the same book would be irrelevant because soon all prices will "be the same" is further evidence that Apple understood and intended that Amazon's ability to set retail prices would soon be eliminated."

Jobs' statements, Cote said, "remain powerful evidence of conspiratorial knowledge and intent."

http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/10/4510338/apple-found-guilty-of-ebook-price-fixing

If you would actually read the court's decision, and Apple's filing today, you would find that the court did indeed rule that "the record is equivocal on whether Apple itself desired higher e-book prices than those offered at Amazon."  In case you still don't understand, that means the judge said herself (in her ruling) that it hasn't been shown that Apple desired higher prices. Yet she convicted Apple anyway. She also said in her ruling that the iPad encouraged innovation and competition. Yet she ruled against that also.

 

You're so fond of quoting what a reporter said Steve Jobs told him. The fact that Jobs was not around to be cross-examined about the statements seems to escape you. You can't convict someone on hearsay when the person who supposedly said it can't be cross-examined (that's according to many previous higher court rulings). She did it anyway. These are all points Apple makes in its appeal (among many others) - that Cote jumped to conclusions, although lacking real evidence. She kept supposing things were true - things that were never proven.

 

I really suggest you read Apple's filing. It will be interesting to see what the appeals court has to say about Cote suppositions and inferences, which (according to Apple) are not supported by law. Also interesting will be the DOJ response, trying to legitimize Cote's rulings.

 

If the appeals court overturns the decision, will you stop posting the same statements over and over?

post #78 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

 

1. The pre-trial opinion was solicited, not spontaneous. If a Judge is not allowed to have an opinion before a case then you will find no judge suitable

2. Please provide evidence that Bromwich was a 'well known friend' and why this would be a bad thing for the Judge to appoint someone she knows is talented.

1. Her pre-trial opinion was way too strong - she didn't say "the gov't. seems to have a strong case," or something like that - she said she believed the government will show Apple engaged in a conspiracy. Before any evidence was introduced, before any opening arguments, before she heard anything from Apple. That's not really appropriate.

2. Cote and Bromwich worked together for years, and she gave him a glowing recommendation to the DOJ for a previous job. All news reports have them being friends. Bromwich has NO experience in anti-trust issues (NONE), and in fact had to hire an outside lawyer to look over the info he gets from Apple, and advise him about anti-trust (at Apple's expense). Does that seem like a qualified, talented person for this case?

post #79 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisell View Post
 

Apple could have settled with the DOJ before the trial like the editors.

They probably wouldn't have Bromwich on their neck right now.

 

Apple could have accepted the first ruling, thus not risking further annoyances.

 

But no, Apple filed an appeal.

 

Do you really think that one of the world biggest company is ruled by a horde of headless childish monkeys?

It's pretty funny to watch self-appointed experts claiming that everything in this case is crystal clear while people at the head of Apple are precisely betting otherwise.

You're right. Apple is not one of the publishers. It's a totally different case than the publishers colluding (a horizontal relationship, which Apple was not a part of). Apple is asserting its innocence and its rights. It's unbelievable the people that so strongly declare Apple guilty, when their appeal hasn't been heard. Lots of interesting arguments of law in today's filing.

post #80 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by ealvarez View Post
 

 

It's always surprising that justice stands with a monopoly. 

 

I do understand that, from a strict (and narrow) point of view, a model that lower the price for consumers may be seen positive. However, is it the role of justice to decide what is better: a model that "protects" consumers or a model that "protects" the companies (editors) that produce the goods (books)?

In its filing, Apple quotes a number of courts who concluded the same thing - that having lower prices is not a good measure of competition. Sometimes prices are too low (below cost), and stifle competition by preventing new sellers entering the market. Sound familiar, Amazon?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple officially appeals e-books antitrust ruling, asks for dismissal or retrial